Australia Post Legal Question

[*crikey*mate*]

Common Law provides us with a postal rule in Adams v Lindsell which says that once a letter of acceptance is posted that it is deemed accepted and not reliant on the acceptance being communicated to the offerror. (sic) (usually, acceptance must be communicated).

That being, it stands to reason that ownership of the letter must pass from the sender to the receiver at the point of postage.

Two questions arise from this;

1) Once posted (either lodged over counter or placed in a designated mail box), the sender should not be able to retrieve the letter/package, as they no longer own it.

What is the actual ruling on this? Can a sender retrieve a postal item after mailing it?

2) In eBayland, The buyer usually/technically pays for the postage, and the seller is merely the agent charged with performing the act. However, despite the buyer paying for the service to have an item that legally belongs to them delivered, why is it that Australia Post will not allow the buyer to make enquiries about that parcel if, for example, it gets lost in the post?

It is my understanding, that the seller must lodge any complaint/claim (which does make sense as they would have the paperwork), but then the buyer is reliant solely on communication from the seller.

So, why is it that the legal owner of the postal item, who paid for the delivery service is prevented from making enquiries or instigating investigations as to its whereabouts?

[digital*ghost]

I meant cancellation of the contract between the sender and AP - you're assuming that retreiving the article from AP = failure to supply the item, but that might not be the case as retreiving it doesn't mean it won't be resent (sender could have packaged an incorrect or incomplete item, for example).

[digital*ghost]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

I don't understand the rest

---

I'll try to put it another way that I hope clarifies how I mean it with purchased and posted items.

Let's say someone approaches a service provider and says I want to purchase X service package. The service provider agrees and a contract is created between the buyer and the initial service provider. The package that the buyer purchased contains something that the original service provider doesn't have the capacity to provide themselves, so they contract that portion of the deal out to a completely different service provider, thereby creating a contract between 2 service providers, but the original buyer does not have a contract between the second service provider, I presume that they could not take the third party to court for failing to provide the service, only the original provider...

Does that make more sense? o_O

[*crikey*mate*]

Furthermore Digi, I'm thinking that the refusal to supply the goods or to retrieve them would action a tort of Interference with Goods in either Conversion or Detinue.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@digital*ghost wrote:

I meant cancellation of the contract between the sender and AP - you're assuming that retreiving the article from AP = failure to supply the item, but that might not be the case as retreiving it doesn't mean it won't be resent (sender could have packaged an incorrect or incomplete item, for example).

---

OK, we're getting closer, *oops lost my train of thought*

What we need is the answer to my question. Is it legal for an item to be retrieved once posted. Common Law surrounding acceptance via post leads me to believe no, but I don't know if the principle is transferrable.

ok, point taken as to supply of the item.

In theory, if it is legal to retrieve a postal item, then if aus post voluntarily hands the item over (ie, you didn't swipe it out of the post box) then that would indicate that they have agreed to cancel the contract. A contract can be cancelled with mutual agreement.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@digital*ghost wrote:

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

I don't understand the rest

---

I'll try to put it another way that I hope clarifies how I mean it with purchased and posted items.

Let's say someone approaches a service provider and says I want to purchase X service package. The service provider agrees and a contract is created between the buyer and the initial service provider. The package that the buyer purchased contains something that the original service provider doesn't have the capacity to provide themselves, so they contract that portion of the deal out to a completely different service provider, thereby creating a contract between 2 service providers, but the original buyer does not have a contract between the second service provider, I presume that they could not take the third party to court for failing to provide the service, only the original provider...

Does that make more sense? o_O

---

nope - ya gonna have to join the dots for me. I got no idea how this relates to my questions.

However, you are correct, the contract is between the sender and initial contracted providor. Any legal action would be through the primary providor, it would be up to the primary providor to seek restitution form whomever they "sublet" the task to.

[digital*ghost]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

---

@digital*ghost wrote:

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

I don't understand the rest

---

I'll try to put it another way that I hope clarifies how I mean it with purchased and posted items.

Let's say someone approaches a service provider and says I want to purchase X service package. The service provider agrees and a contract is created between the buyer and the initial service provider. The package that the buyer purchased contains something that the original service provider doesn't have the capacity to provide themselves, so they contract that portion of the deal out to a completely different service provider, thereby creating a contract between 2 service providers, but the original buyer does not have a contract between the second service provider, I presume that they could not take the third party to court for failing to provide the service, only the original provider...

Does that make more sense? o_O

---

nope - ya gonna have to join the dots for me. I got no idea how this relates to my questions.

However, you are correct, the contract is between the sender and initial contracted providor. Any legal action would be through the primary providor, it would be up to the primary providor to seek restitution form whomever they "sublet" the task to.

---

That's pretty much what I was getting at - the buyer contracts the seller to provide an item, the seller contracts a carrier to deliver the item, therefore the buyer's contract is not with Australia Post and they can not seek restitution from AP (unless authorised) if the seller's (sender's) independent contract is not fulfilled... ?

[*crikey*mate*]

ahhhhhhhh *penny drops*

sorry digi - sleep deprived here - never made it to bed last night and I don't have time for a decent nanna nap today LOL, so have to wait until tonight!

[*crikey*mate*]

Ya know, this would all be a whole lot easier if Aus Post would just come in and answer the questions, eh?

[digital*ghost]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

Ya know, this would all be a whole lot easier if Aus Post would just come in and answer the questions, eh?

---

Well, rather than providing the answer directly, or leaving a card letting you know when and where you can collect the answer, they probably left the answer in a safe, secure location.... Look for somewhere out of the weather and pray it wasn't stolen while you were wondering where it was 

[peridot55555]

Here's something else to ponder.

There's supposed to be free trade between the States under the Constitution.

So why do we pay more postage to send things interstate?